It doesn't matter if a petition has one signature or 50 million, unless you are asserting that signing petitions magically affects physical processes on Earth, petitions have zero relevance to any question about the science of climate. Petitions are data for study by psychologists, sociologists or political scientists.

Since we seem to be beating a dead horse over this subject, let me provide a few links where the military(yes the military) and the World Bank are developing an interest and concern over climate change. For some reason they feel there could be future catastrophic results if it's not addressed.

I don't exactly consider the military to be a bunch of left-wingers. Nor do I feel the World Bank are exactly tree huggers. So just maybe there might be something to this after all if they are interested.

The site norcalgolfer generously provided was quite interesting. I read who signed from my state(Florida) and there were a bunch of MD's and DVM's(vets). Hardly what I call climate scientists.

So the links you provided KarenS....they are links to reports generated for the express reason of attempting to convince the military that global warming is a threat to national security. These reports by no means prove that the military considers GW a threat or will ever consider it one.

In order to sign the petition you must have a minimum of a bachelors degree in a scientific field. As well as having MDs and DVMs there are quite a few with PHD's. In fact, the number of Environmental scientists who have signed the petition is quite a bit higher than the 600 that are supposedly part of the IPCCs reports. Although quite a few of that 600 have sued and won against the IPCC, claiming that the IPCC committed fraud, and misrepresented their findings in order to promote a false campaign.

Mark, when it comes to global warming you are just as bad as many of the religious zealots I have come across. Why don't you give it a go at actually looking at the entire picture. Don't immediately dismiss something just because it disagrees with something you believe in with religious intensity. Try following the money, look at who is actually funding this global warming campaign, look who is profiting, and by all means, look at the raw data. That petition I posted was based on very sound scientific data, did you even bother to read it, or did you just dismiss it out of hand? I really couldn't care less if you accept this or not, I have been pointing out the flaws in GW for about 6 years now, and I made a prediction then that is showing all signs of coming true. I stated that within 20 years most people will know GW was a hoax, we now have 14 years left, and it appears that the truth may end up being known much sooner. I have to say it is quite entertaining to watch this unfold, there are a lot of people who will have to recognize at some point that they made a lot of statements that were utterly foolish. I also know that a great many of the people supporting the movement but not profiting from it are doing so with nothing but good intentions, those people will be extremely angry at the people like Al Gore who are just riding the gravy train.

Did you know that ecofascism goes back to before The Magna Carta? The Magna Carta even has sections to deal with it. GW is nothing new, just a very old game that never ceases to lose it's appeal to each new generation. Enjoy your fear, I choose rather to embrace knowledge, even when knowledge is unpopular.

So the links you provided KarenS....they are links to reports generated for the express reason of attempting to convince the military that global warming is a threat to national security. These reports by no means prove that the military considers GW a threat or will ever consider it one.

As was the case at that time, the country is again trying to come to terms with new threats to national security. Rather than one, single entity – the Soviet Union – and one, single animating ideology – communism – we are instead facing challenges from multiple sources: a new, more malignant form of terrorism inspired by jihadist extremism, ethnic strife, disease, poverty, climate change, failed and failing states, resurgent powers, and so on.

The interaction of these changes with existing and future resource, environmental, and climate pressures may generate new security challenges. Furthermore, as the relative balance of economic and military power between states shifts, some propelled forward by economic development and resource endowment, others held back by physical pressures or economic and political stagnation, new fears and insecurities will arise, presenting new risks for the international community.

These risks will require managing the divergent needs of massively increasing energy demand to maintain economic development and the need to tackle climate change. Collectively, these developments pose a new range of challenges for states and societies.

DoD'sJoint Operating Environment, a white paper intended to "provide a perspective on future trends, shocks, contexts, and implications for future joint force commanders and other leaders and professionals in the national security field, devotes a chapter to climate change: Part II: Trends Influencing The World’s Security: G. Climate Change and Natural Disasters

NORAD's and USNORTHCOM's list of key strategic issues, 2008:

Quote:

10. Climate change in the Arctic Ocean portends increased access to a strategically-important region that borders the United States.

PACOM's list of key strategic issues, 2008:

Quote:

2. What sociological trends (probability and consequence) will impact upon PACOM or the region?

12. How will the hydrological effects of global warming and climate change (e.g., melting ice caps, rising oceans, desertification, water scarcity) in the next 10 to 20 years impact security in Africa and the Pacific?

Climate change and other projected trends will compound already difficult conditions in many developing countries. These trends will increase the likelihood of humanitarian crises, the potential for epidemic diseases, and regionally destabilizing population migrations. Desertification is occurring at nearly 50-70 thousand square miles per year. Today more than 15 million people are dying annually from communicable diseases. The number of people dying each year could grow exponentially with increases in population density and natural disasters.

US Navy creates a new task force, Task Force Climate Change, in "a further sign that the military is taking climate change seriously."

Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global transport system. While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources of competition and conflict for access and natural resources.

17. As the polar ice recedes, the carve-up of the continental shelf under the Arctic may be the last big territorial dispute in the world. Some have already labelled it ‘the race to the Arctic’ and stress that it began long ago. A new international shipping route may become possible, a route between Northeast Asia and Northern Europe, that would be much quicker than the Panama or Suez canals. Climate change is also predicted to trigger a rush of new under-sea territorial claims in attempts to gain control of significant oil, gas and other minerals. By some accounts, the Arctic contains 25% of the world’s undiscovered crude oil and natural gas14.

CANADA, never the Johnny-come-lately, is paying heed -- and has chosen to not stand idly in the sidelines:

RISING sea levels could lead to failed states across the Pacific and require extra naval deployments to deal with increases in illegal migration and fishing, a Defence Force analysis says.

"Environmental stress" has increased the risk of conflicts over resources and food and may demand greater involvement by the military in stabilisation, reconstruction and disaster relief, the analysis, prepared by Defence's strategic policy division, says.

It warns there is a risk of a serious global conflict over the Arctic as melting icecaps allow easier access to undersea oil and gas deposits.

In Australia's northern waters, "climate change is expected to change the location of South-East Asian fishing grounds, causing an increase in illegal fishing," says a summary of the analysis. "This may raise demand for ADF patrols in these regions."

3.34 Climate change is potentially the greatest challenge to global stability and security, and therefore to national security. Tackling its causes, mitigating its risks and preparing for and dealing with its consequences are critical to our future security, as well as protecting global prosperity and avoiding humanitarian disaster.

Thank you for the interesting links you provided. I have to wonder though whether you actually read the articles? The military is a very large organization, which has to deal with an enormous variety of issues and possible issues. Nearly all of the links you provided to examples of the military supposedly believing in climate change were simply stating that they were potential threats, and even clarified that there is a great deal of dissent within the scientific community regarding the veracity of AGW claims. The only link you provided to an actual military document that truly espoused global warming, was itself proved to be factually incorrect within the first few paragraphs, and differed completely from another link you provided about the same colloquium. Here are the 2 links, if you read them you see that they agree in the very broad sense that there is some climate change, the tone of the 2 articles are very different however.

It is important to remember that the IPCC is an inherently
conservative body. It can only make a statement by the
unanimous consent of all the scientific representatives
of all the world’s governments. And it uses its words
very precisely—so when it says “unequivocal,” we
know that it means exactly 90 percent certain—which
is very certain indeed.4

This is not at all correct, and to prove that I am not merely talking out of my ass, here are some links to what various contributors to the IPCC reports, as well as many other scientists (over 13x the number of scientists who contributed to the IPCC summary), think about both the IPCC and AGW. Please feel free to dissect the credentials of the scientists who are quoted in these documents, they are impeccable.

As far as those links you provided to The Guardian, please, don't tell me you actually believe that Britain will be in a Siberian like climate by 2020 as well as several European cities submerged?!?!

Those 2 links I provided also contain many more links within them, hopefully you take the same time to research them as I took to research your multitude of links. In spite of the many links you provided, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. military accepts AGW as a clear and present danger. If you read the credentials from the links I provided you will see that several, though by no means all, of the scientists belong to military research groups. It seems that the military getting involved in climate research is a good thing, probably because their funding is not dependent upon the promotion of fear, but rather on the facts of whether there truly is a clear and present danger from AGW and so-called greenhouse gasses and theorized resultant climate change.

Climate change is real, and has been happening for billions of years. Focusing billions of dollars a year on an industry that is completely fabricated when we have very real problems ahead of us should be criminal. I echo the voices of the scientists who wrote the letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when I say that the IPCC needs to be held accountable for their dishonest practices and procedures.

As far as those links you provided to The Guardian, please, don't tell me you actually believe that Britain will be in a Siberian like climate by 2020 as well as several European cities submerged?!?!

Well, the report is a product of Rumsfeld's Pentagon, a dark bunker that was not exactly known for its capability to provide accurate and intelligent "intelligence."

The actual report that went to President Bush, talks about water shortage, resources wars and persistent draughts in conjuction with parts of Europe becoming "colder, drier, and windier, making it more like Siberia."

Judging by the money, political attention and increasing military posturing re: the High North (the Barents-Svalbard/Spitsbergen-North Pole region), yes, I do believe it's quite possible that is where the next enduring conflict lies, the new "Colder" War, if you like. With the increase of ice-free waters and melting polar ice, the High North is emerging as the next strategic military-energy-transportation hub-hotspot, considering the area is estimated to hold 30-40% of the world's energy resources.

Quote:

A) Arctic resources, especially oil and gas, will grow in importance in near furure -- I believe that's a fact.
B) Arctic nations are increasingly fixing their military eyes on the High North to protect their energy interests -- I believe that's a fact.
C) All this new attention on this previously peripheral region is due to the melting polar ice and new ice-free transportation routes and the possibilities and challenges thereof -- I believe that's also a fact.

What about you? Do you agree or disagree with the above statements?

Maybe the High North is an under reported issue in the US mainstream mass media, I don't know; maybe the ignorance goes even deeper and the Bush-era US polito-military establishment was too focused on playing cat-and-mouse with third world ragtag militias and their homemade bombs to notice where the new big game was being launched. The rest of the Arctic nations, however, seem to acknowledge the game is already on. They're increasing their military budgets, upgrading their Arctic fleet, and drafting new military doctrines.

These are no mere partisan political "speculations" whether or not climate change is real and what's the cause: these are very concrete actions with big money on the table. By betting on the climate change -- melting polar ice and the strategic resources and new strategic transportation routes it will open (Northeast Passage/The Northern Sea Route saves thousands of miles, ditto Northwest Passage) -- the Arctic nations are putting their money where their mouth is, as it is. The Arctic nations have obviously judged with enough confidence that the possibility is real and so are the threats/challenges that follow.

Moscow spelled her mind out loud and clear enough on their new white paper earlier this year: Russia intends to develop Arctic forces to protect her Arctic claims, which are slated to become the nation's leading resource base by 2020.

I don't see how Moscow could have put it any more clearer terms than that?

Moscow's list of Arctic investments is already impressive and growing: upgrading the Northern Fleet, a whole new Arctic force, a new generation nuclear icebreaker fleet, floating nuclear power plants to power Arctic energy explorations. Very concrete actions, no room for speculation.

Canada, too, is suddenly upgrading her Arctic fleet. Ditto Norway, which, for instance, has put an order for 48 F-35 jets at a cost of $ 3 billion to replace their old Gripens. The reason: Gripens do not fare so well in the vast Arctic north, F-35s are better. Norway also recently reclassified Russia as a military threat. The reason: the escalating competition in the High North.

Even the "cardboard" terrorists are expected to have taken notice; the al-Qaeda affiliated Chechen mafia has a presence in Murmansk. Just so happens the area is the world's true nuclear hotspot -- and a rising energy powerhouse. In wrong hands, an oil tanker is a weapon of mass destruction. Ditto a nuclear powered icebreaker or a cargo ship. In an energy-starved world, oil rigs and floating nuclear power plants are lucrative targets hard to defend. Canada has already recognized that melting ice in the north opens up a new and hard-to-patrol backdoors for terrorists to slip in.

The same panel that accurately depicted the rise of Muslim extremism as an up-and-coming source of terror and even predicted the assault on the Pentagon using a hijacked airplane now recognizes that future energy sources will be in remote Arctic/deep sea areas and these will be new targets for terrorism. I have to say I don't see anything behind the links you provided, in the letter to the UN Sec General or the US Senate Minority Report, that would convince me all this talk about the High North's growing strategic importance is just hot air (or cold, depending ).

norcalgolfer wrote:

Those 2 links I provided also contain many more links within them, hopefully you take the same time to research them as I took to research your multitude of links.

I'm afraid you are way late to the game already. The way I see it, at this point, it does not matter one bit whether someone somewhere can produce compelling enough evidence that the polar ice is not melting away, when the Arctic nations are already racing to the pole, as it is, preparing for possible conflicts/confrontations over the resources that the melting ice will reveal as well as to the new non-state threats (terrorism) it will bring.

A scientific contrary paper here and there is essentially insignificant. Because it won't change the fact that a new polito-military race is already on. The saber rattling is on. That's the reality. That's the new security dimension. The Arctic is being militarized as we speak, totally regardless what some US conservatives or dissident scientists say elsewhere. The "threat", after all, is not found in the papers; it's already "out there", the genie.

Tensions are rising in the Arctic as the receding ice cap sparks competition for new shipping lanes and access to undersea minerals and oil.

Canada and Russia recently declared their intentions to train and equip new military units for operations at the top of the world. Meanwhile, officials in the seven Arctic nations - Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden - are arguing about what constitutes aggressive behavior in the High North.

Helsinki - Nordic governments are weighing an integrated naval approach to bolster security in the High North, and better manage the increased exploration and shipping activity expected there as climate change affects the polar ice cap.

Comments the former Norwegian Defense Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg: "There are many good and valid reasons for closer Nordic cooperation in the Arctic. Some are security related and others are linked to growing economic activity in the region, energy production, as well as enlarged commercial shipping traffic, which will increase as the polar ice melts and shipping has greater access."

The High North is almost literally the land that time forgot. After several failed attempts in the 19th century by explorers to see if its vast expanses of ice could be crossed, it was tacitly decided that the High North had little to offer - except frostbite.

Since then, the region has had little attention. Even some of the maritime charts used by cruise ships in the region date back to the 1800s.

But things are changing. The Arctic is, unlike the Antarctic, a frozen sea. Its ice is now melting. And much faster than anticipated.

This has major security implications. Borders are far from clear. Disagreements over ownership of natural resources have surfaced. And climatic changes mean the situation is evolving each week.

norcalgolfer wrote:

In spite of the many links you provided, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. military accepts AGW as a clear and present danger.

I think that the very fact alone that the US Secretary of Defensespecifically namedclimate change as one of the new national security threats is evidence enough that the US military indeed does see climate change as a threat.

As per my links & quotes, several US Combat Commands list "climate change" as one of their present key strategic issues, but supposedly, you have seen "absolutely no evidence whatsoever" that the U.S. military sees climate change as a national security threat?

I would also like to point out that by suddenly jumping from "threat", which is the issue here under discussion, to "clear and present danger" (your new wording), you are trying to move the goal post.

The military is tasked to defend the nation: protect, prevent and prevail. Few militaries in the world accomplish that by simply sitting on their fat behinds waiting for the next war to break out to find out who prevails. From national security point, war ("prevail") is always a massive failure; mistakes have accumulated and situation has already gone very wrong. Assessing and anticipating new emerging threats is a big part of the first two tasks to "protect and prevent."

Which is why military/security establishments are now busy putting out papers that focus on the climate change and the Arctic region as a new strategic hotspot, because it's their job to stay a step ahead. Yes, the military deals with an enormous variety of issues and possible issues, as you point out. They do not, however, pull these "possible issues" randomly out of a magicians hat and write threat assessments that focus on improbable scenarios.

New Perspectives on Military Power in the Arctic
(Comment: an interesting discussion on the actual how, how a potential Arctic conflict might look like and how it would be fought and with what force, by a Norwegian General and the Chief of Defence)

And these examples are just more tips of the iceberg, drops in the Arctic Ocean etc., etc. (pun totally intended! )

So when you wrote that: "Nearly all of the links you provided to examples of the military supposedly [sic!] believing in climate change were simply stating that they were potential threats" that is precisely what the military does in order to "ptotect and prevent," i.e. defend the nation.

For instance, back in 2001, a joint/co-sponsored symposium Naval Operations in an Ice-free Arctic was held. There were fifty military and civilian participants representing the Navy staff, the fleet, program managers, U.S. Coast Guard operators, Arctic subject matter experts, Canadian military and civilian experts and officers from the Royal Navy.

A summary of the salient points discussed during the symposium [all emphasis mine]:

Quote:

Observed and Forecasted Arctic Change

• Submarine data reveal a 40% decrease in arctic sea ice volume. Satellite passive microwave data since the 1970s demonstrate a decrease in sea ice extent of 3% per decade. Model data suggest that a sea ice thickness decrease of 30% and an ice volume decrease between 15% and 40% by 2050.
• These trends translate into a possibility that the US Navy will be required to operate in the Arctic. The ice infested waters will restrict maneuverability and limit sensor and weapon employment. Harsh arctic conditions will cause super structure icing and limit personnel exposure times.

Overarching Issues

• The operational implications of an ice-free Arctic are neither well known nor well appreciated outside the oceanography community. Significant research and a subsequent education/awareness plan is required to inform all stakeholders including requirements officers, acquisition executives, and operators. This is essential to produce the level of naval service interest required to make informed decisions about future extended operations in the polar seas.
• No new naval missions are expected, but an increased scope of naval operations is likely in an ice-free Arctic. Ensuring access and stabilizing the
global commons are the most overriding reasons for increased operations in the Arctic.
• New capabilities will be required in many aspects of air, space, surface and subsurface operations and support.

Strategy and Policy

• The most significant change envisioned is that forces will need to form into task groups (or forces) where the “task” defines the composition of the group. These tailored force packages would likely not look like the traditional carrier battlegroup. Additionally, traditional assets will likely be used in some nontraditional ways.
• Interoperability between allied, joint, and coalition forces must be improved in order to operate effectively in the region.
• Bilateral and multinational alliances will be essential to define all international boundaries (Economic Exclusion Zones and continental shelves) within the Arctic, resolve bilateral issues related to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) implementation in the Arctic, and provide forward basing capabilities and shorten logistic space and time lines.
• Potential threats that will emerge from greater access to the region must be better defined, both by country (or group such as a terrorist organization) and type.
• A concept of operations for maritime forces in the Arctic will be required, including the types of platforms and weapons systems needed for Arctic operations.
• Currently there is no single unified CINC with operational responsibility for the Arctic region. An Arctic area of national defense/naval requirements should be defined and assigned to a single CINC.

Conclusion

The timeline for a significantly navigable Arctic may extend decades into the future. However, the group noted that U.S. Naval operational missions in the Arctic, and related requirements, must be identified in the nearer term to ensure that the necessary operational capabilities exist when future Arctic missions do present themselves. Recognition and acknowledgement by DON/DOD of new threats presented by changes in the Arctic seascape is required to generate the necessary momentum to sustain an active interest in developing a strategic plan that includes prudent resourcing in future POM cycles to acquire the unique capabilities required to operate in the hostile environment of the Arctic.

Now, that's kind of rinse and repeat. Recognizing and acknowledging new emerging threats is the first step in keeping a nation safe.

Because: "The United States is an Arctic nation, with varied and compelling interests in that region. This directive takes into account several developments, including, among others: 1) Altered national policies on homeland security and defense; 2.) The effects of climate change and increasing human activity in the Arctic region; 3.) The establishment and ongoing work of the Arctic Council; and 4.) A growing awareness that the Arctic region is both fragile and rich in resources.

Quote:

B. National Security and Homeland Security Interests in the Arctic

1. The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.

2. The United States also has fundamental homeland security interests in preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating those criminal or hostile acts that could increase the United States vulnerability to terrorism in the Arctic region.

3. The Arctic region is primarily a maritime domain; as such, existing policies and authorities relating to maritime areas continue to apply, including those relating to law enforcement. Human activity in the Arctic region is increasing and is projected to increase further in coming years. This requires the United States to assert a more active and influential national presence to protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the region.

4. The United States exercises authority in accordance with lawful claims of United States sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in the Arctic region, including sovereignty within the territorial sea, sovereign rights and jurisdiction within the United States exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, and appropriate control in the United States contiguous zone.

5. Freedom of the seas is a top national priority. The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route includes straits used for international navigation; the regime of transit passage applies to passage through those straits. Preserving the rights and duties relating to navigation and overflight in the Arctic region supports our ability to exercise these rights throughout the world, including through strategic straits.

6. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to national security and homeland security interests in the Arctic, the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

a. Develop greater capabilities and capacity, as necessary, to protect United States air, land, and sea borders in the Arctic region;
b. Increase Arctic maritime domain awareness in order to protect maritime commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources;
c. Preserve the global mobility of United States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic region;
d. Project a sovereign United States maritime presence in the Arctic in support of essential United States interests; and
e. Encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes in the Arctic region.

The reason I use the term "clear and present danger" rather than potential security threat, is because there are many many things that are viewed as potential security threats. This is exactly because the military can't afford to take any chances. I think it is very telling that the military reports you linked point out that anthropogenic climate change is not accepted as fact, and they point out that there is a great deal of dissent among scientists as to the veracity of those claims. The people that are preparing these broad national security threat papers are not scientists, they are analysts whose job it is to make sure that leaders are well informed as to all possible security threats, whether they exist in reality or not.

As far as the Arctic is concerned, yes, sea ice is melting, that is not a matter of contention. As resources are depleted throughout the rest of the world, and technological advances allow access to new resources, as well as previously unavailable resources becoming available in the Arctic we are seeing a push from Arctic border countries to stake their claim on newly available resources. Climate change is real, and undisputed; anthropogenic climate change is what is disagreed upon. As the scientists in the links I provided show, climate change is dependent upon solar cycles and plate tectonics, not CO2 or green-house gasses. We should be completely prepared to deal with the Arctic issues, but mitigation of the climate change responsible for Arctic sea ice melt is simply not possible, as we currently do not have any technology capable of controlling either the sun, or plate tectonics.

The point of this new movement by the majority of environmental scientists pushing against the IPCC is that the global warming fear industry is not based on science, but rather the fact that nearly all of the money available to environmental scientists is contingent upon them agreeing with and promoting global warming fears. The EU has largely bought into this propaganda, and has been seriously harming industry through the regulations based on disinformation provided by the IPCC and the 52 scientists who wrote the summary they released.

As far as the Netherlands believing there will be a 3 foot sea level rise and is spending 1 billion to build new dikes, that is exactly my point. Extremism and disinformation provided by the IPCC and their like is causing countries to spend billions for no reason. The U.S. is spending around $5 billion a year, that money should be going to boosting the economy, but instead is going to try to mitigate a threat that we have absolutely no control over. If you looked through the comments on those links I provided in my last post, you will see that many of the scientists opposing anthropogenic climate change were previously advocates of it. As climate science advances though, they have realized their errors and are working to change them.

Please remember, I am not arguing that climate change is not occurring, just that it is not caused by humans. We are currently coming out of what is known as "The Little Ice Age", in order for that to happen, warming is required, otherwise we would still be in "The Little Ice Age". Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest lie of the 21st century, but that lie is being exposed worldwide. Finally the silent majority of environmental scientists are speaking out, even though it means they may have a very hard time getting any funding afterward.

As far as the Arctic is concerned, yes, sea ice is melting, that is not a matter of contention. As resources are depleted throughout the rest of the world, and technological advances allow access to new resources, as well as previously unavailable resources becoming available in the Arctic we are seeing a push from Arctic border countries to stake their claim on newly available resources. Climate change is real, and undisputed; anthropogenic climate change is what is disagreed upon.

By suddenly jumping from "climate change" to "anthropogenic climate change" you are again trying to move the goal post.

The argument here is that the U.S. military now sees climate change as a national security threat. As in multiyear polar sea ice is retreating, opening up new transportation channels, access to new resources, leading to new territorial claims and increased military acticity to secure the claims, also new targets, new waters for terrorism.

I.e. KarenS's original post: "the military(yes the military) and the World Bank are developing an interest and concern over climate change," which you dismissed. ("Climate change" is also the term used in KarenS's article link.)

norcalgolfer wrote:

The U.S. is spending around $5 billion a year, that money should be going to boosting the economy, but instead is going to try to mitigate a threat that we have absolutely no control over.

I would argue, though, that the colossal US polito-military industry will have no problem riding the climate pony and stoking a new polar war as long as it means bigger military spending, new gadgets to be built, and their private coffers going ka-ching, not forgetting the actual Arctic energy reserves. After all, "terror" is no target, Afghanistan did not have any good targets to beging with, and the more lucrative targets in Iraq won't last forever.

The reason I am calling it anthropogenic climate change instead of just climate change is for clarity. Perhaps KarenS would be happy to clarify what she was talking about. It is my understanding that whenever anyone refers to climate change or global warming on this post they are referring to what is actually called anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming. You trying to say that I am changing the post is just a way of avoiding my points and the facts I have listed. The same as with my "clear and present danger", I use the proper terms in order to clarify exactly what I am talking about. Since all this is written, tone has a hard time coming across, therefore it is completely necessary to sometimes use more accurate terms when referring to topics in order to ensure that the correct message is being presented.

Regarding your comments about the military, I am very aware that a good portion of the world is extremely jealous of the U.S.A. and our military. You may not consider "terror" a target, I however do, along with all the other people who actually remember September 11, 2001. I am not about to get into a debate with you on this post about the merits of U.S. military policy in Iraq or the rest of the Middle East. If you want to talk about that, or make other derisive remarks about the U.S. military, you can start a new post. You may not like that the U.S. military believes in being heroes, but Europe sure loves it when we step in and save your asses, of course many Europeans go right back to being jealous a few years later. Please don't think that I mean all Europeans think this way, it certainly seems to be quite a few though, as well as you Karaa.

What I dismissed about both KarenS's post and yours Karaa, is that the U.S. military believes and accepts that anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change are facts and immediate urgent national security threats. All you have proven is that they are considering it as a possible threat, with a great deal of dissent among scientists as to what the threat actually consists of. I accepted the arguments that natural climate change in the Arctic has provided real national security issues. I continue to argue that those climate changes are natural and not anthropogenic. I did not dismiss however that the World Bank is professing support of AGW or ACC, this is because they absolutely do profess support, they have also stated in board meetings that the reason for this is because there is a ton of money to be made in that area. Considering other comments you have made on this post and others, I would think that the simple fact that the World Bank supports it you would hate and disagree with it, I guess I was wrong

Karaa, you have not even attempted to address the points I raised in the links I have provided, is this because those links deep down have you wondering whether you have been lied to?? They should make you wonder, the overwhelming support from environmental scientists around the world is a pretty convincing argument isn't it

My Sunday paper had this featured article in the Perspective section today. It is written by Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn. He explains why the military is paying attention to energy efficiency and global warming. The article states "Our sobering conclusion is that climate change and the US energy posture constitute a serious and urgent threat to national security---militarily, diplomatically and economically."

The link will provide the rest of the story. This article tells me the military considers it a priority. You can decide for yourself whether global warming is fact or fiction.

The reason I am calling it anthropogenic climate change instead of just climate change is for clarity. Perhaps KarenS would be happy to clarify what she was talking about. It is my understanding that whenever anyone refers to climate change or global warming on this post they are referring to what is actually called anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming.

KarenS did post links to clarify what she was talking about.

For instance:

Quote:

From: NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses convened a Military Advisory Board (MAB) of eleven retired three- and four-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security and lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found.

In April 2007 CNA released the MAB's landmark report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, that articulates the concept of climate change acting as a "threat multiplier" for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and identifies key challenges that must be planned for now if they are to be met effectively in the future.

In the report, the Military Advisory Board for instance brings up the melting polar ice and its implications to national security.

norcalgolfer wrote:

You trying to say that I am changing the post is just a way of avoiding my points and the facts I have listed.

KarenS wrote: "the military(yes the military) and the World Bank are developing an interest and concern over climate change," which you dismissed: "These reports by no means prove that the military considers GW a threat or will ever consider it one," wherein you switched the original term "climate change" to "global warming/GW."

Taking the original argument, "the military is developing an interest and concern over climate change", I posted among other things Secretary Gates's list of new and emerging national security threats, which included climate change, plus several other examples from the military, including such as the Navy's Task Force Climate Change.

To which you replied: "In spite of the many links you provided, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. military accepts AGW as a clear and present danger," wherein you again suddenly jumped from "GW" to "AGW" and from "interest" and "concern" to "danger."

In next post I provided more examples from the military along the line "climate change and national security," concentrating on the High North, i.e. melting polar ice, access to new resources, transit routes, new "northern" terrorism etc.

Climate change clearly does have national security implications in the High North, because your next reply acknowledges it -- and switches from "climate change"/"GW"/"AGW" to "anthropogenic climate change": "Climate change is real, and undisputed; anthropogenic climate change is what is disagreed upon."

Quote:

Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

In other words, when it became impossible to deny that the military is indeed concerned about the climate change and the national security implications for instance in the High North ("I accepted the arguments that natural climate change in the Arctic has provided real national security issues."), you suddenly try to posit the military is not concerned about the anthropogenic climate change. "What I dismissed about both KarenS's post and yours Karaa, is that the U.S. military believes and accepts that anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change are facts and immediate urgent national security threats."

Sorry, but that happens to be a classing moving-the-goalpost.

Whether or not anthropogenic is a "fact" or not is not the argument here. The military is not interested in the partisan political acronym game GW/AGW/WE; the military is tasked to defend the nation and the military's focus is on what's out there: the climate change that makes polar ice melt away and its national security implications.

norcalgolfer wrote:

The same as with my "clear and present danger", I use the proper terms in order to clarify exactly what I am talking about. Since all this is written, tone has a hard time coming across, therefore it is completely necessary to sometimes use more accurate terms when referring to topics in order to ensure that the correct message is being presented.

"Clear and present danger" is not a military term and therefore not "more accurate", quite the contrary. It's jack ryanism.

norcalgolfer wrote:

Regarding your comments about the military, I am very aware that a good portion of the world is extremely jealous of the U.S.A. and our military.

Strawman, followed by a rampage of strawmen. The world's alleged "jealousy" of the U.S.A. and US military, those European "asses" etc., etc. do in no way change the reality that climate change in the High North is opening up new waters both literally and figuratively, with implications to the Arctic nations' militaries. And that the US/Pentagon's waking up to the new "colder" reality has been somewhat slow compared to the other Arctic nations, Russia especially, considering that Moscow makes no secret she sees the High North as a catapult back to superpowerdom.

norcalgolfer wrote:

Considering other comments you have made on this post and others, I would think that the simple fact that the World Bank supports it you would hate and disagree with it, I guess I was wrong

I assume you confuse me with another poster.

norcalgolfer wrote:

Karaa, you have not even attempted to address the points I raised in the links I have provided, is this because those links deep down have you wondering whether you have been lied to?? They should make you wonder, the overwhelming support from environmental scientists around the world is a pretty convincing argument isn't it

No, I haven't and I don't intend to . Geopolitics is my turf. The hard science does not interest me at all, and I don't feel I have anything to contribute to the discussion in that area. I mean, seeing the word "CO2" makes my eyes glaze over. The tug-of-war over the climate acronyms is partisan US politics without any wider/global implications.

My Sunday paper had this featured article in the Perspective section today. It is written by Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn. He explains why the military is paying attention to energy efficiency and global warming. The article states "Our sobering conclusion is that climate change and the US energy posture constitute a serious and urgent threat to national security---militarily, diplomatically and economically."

The link will provide the rest of the story. This article tells me the military considers it a priority. You can decide for yourself whether global warming is fact or fiction.

Since the National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD-66 / HSPD-25: "Arctic Region Policy" the President issued earlier this year, it is no longer a choice, really. The Presidential Directive dictates that the DoD has to take climate change and its Arctic national security implications into account.

Ok, so maybe I am misunderstanding your position here, both Karaa and KarenS. We agree that some sort of climate change is occurring, we agree that the Arctic is providing a national security threat due to melting sea ice and the natural resources that are now becoming available. Anthropogenic climate change is not a political term, it is a scientific one. When Mark started this post, he presented the opinion that what is scientifically referred to as anthropogenic climate change is a fact. Following that people disagreed or agreed with him regarding that. When KarenS posted that the military and World Bank was taking notice of climate change it seemed she was trying to use that as an argument for climate change as Mark was arguing. Since Mark was making the argument for anthropogenic climate change then I assumed that is what KarenS was arguing for. KarenS and Karaa then provided links, this made it seem to me that Karaa and KarenS are making the same argument. Some of the links simply talked about the Arctic (mostly provided by Karaa), we are not in disagreement there, and never have been, even before you posted all those links. Some of the links promoted anthropogenic climate change, and this is what I disagree with. When you post a series of links to make your argument, it must be assumed that you agree with those links. I made it clear exactly what part of those links I disagreed with, ACC and AGW. I agree with the arctic threats, and by continuing to use the vague term climate change you are avoiding either clarifying that we do not disagree at all, or clarifying that you do in fact support anthropogenic climate change. Considering this post was created by Mark to address anthropogenic climate change I do not think I am out of line if when you say climate change I assume you mean anthropogenic climate change. The difference between the two is enormous, one means focusing time and money on regulating industry green house gasses and spreading untruths, one is a natural phenomenon we can have no effect on but should prepare as best as possible for. One is also very much a national security threat, the other is not.

When you say climate change you are not being clear at all, what exactly are you Karaa, and you KarenS referring to? If you are merely talking about the changing climate as it happens naturally, I apologize. If you are talking about man-made climate change, then it is you who is trying to avoid the points of my post. Please clarify; When you refer to climate change, are you referring to man-made climate change or not?? Neither you KarenS, nor you Karaa have clarified that as of yet.

KarenS, your sunday paper link was a link to an article written by a retired military officer who works for a group which submits national security threat reports to the military, and it stated that he was in town to present his report to the military, there are many similar groups to the one this retired officer works for. This does not qualify as the military making an official statement that they support ACC, and yes, ACC is the correct term for this because in his article he makes the wild claims coming out of that sector. I don't see how that article proves in any way that the military believes the alarmist ACC claims. In the links I provided, several currently serving military environmental scientists comment that they do not believe in ACC or AGW, this makes a much better argument towards their position on the subject in my opinion.

@Karaa, I glanced through some of the other posts, and at first glance it appears that I was in fact confusing you with some other posters, I apologize for that.

Please clarify; When you refer to climate change, are you referring to man-made climate change or not?? Neither you KarenS, nor you Karaa have clarified that as of yet.

My use of the term "climate change" is intentional, because it is considered to be a (more) neutral term that merely depicts that something is happening (as in where there use to be thick ice is now open waters) without making assumptions on the cause of those changes, whether man-made or not.

And that's my position there. I'm referring to the climate change. Not to the "changing climate as it happens naturally", and not to the "man-made climate change." So I don't feel I have been "lied to", as you suggested in your previous post, because I haven't even paid due attention to the debate man-made/natural. Like I said, reading all those scientific "CO2" papers in order to pick a side would be pure torture as far as I am concerned.

norcalgolfer wrote:

@Karaa, I glanced through some of the other posts, and at first glance it appears that I was in fact confusing you with some other posters, I apologize for that.